I’m with Eliezer on this one, that the vast majority of philosophy is utter nonsense and trash. Objectivism seems to be a shining exception to that rule, however. I am an avid reader of Hofstadter, and I have also been reading up some on the foundations of mathematics which seems like it might be interesting, and Objectivism has turned me on to philosophy in general, so I am on the lookout for more good work. The amount of cross-over between Objectivist style “rationality” and LessWrong style “rationality” is especially awesome, and it’s unfortunate that there’s such a lack of cross-over in the communities.
I’m not sure what you mean by “unconditional endorsement”, however. My primary purpose here was to recommend some reading for those who would like to know more, but yes I do endorse Objectivism in general, for what that’s worth. Also, even if I thought the philosophy was wrong, as an avid reader of fiction, the novels really are awesome in their own right. So I am endorsing those, too.
If you want to start an Objectivism thread laying out the problems you and others have with the actual philosophy, I would be glad to join in there, I think that would be awesome :) If not, I will probably create one myself at some point.
Unfortunately, no it hasn’t. The only articles on LessWrong have made the people of Objectivism their subject, not the philosophy or the ideas themselves. I would like to see a thread devoted specifically to the latter. I’m the type of person who is not particularly interested in all the drama about the people or the community, just the actual substance of the ideas.
By “unconditional endorsement”, I mean that you had a shining recommendation with no acknowledgement that a lot of people think there’s something pretty wrong with Rand and no qualifiers as to how there might be value to be found in Rand’s stuff even if one did acknowledge the problems.
So it basically comes off as you reading the room poorly and assuming that people mostly either haven’t heard of Rand or think Rand is awesome, while people are probably actually coming in with the notion that Rand’s stuff is some sort of philosophical crackpottery espoused by assholes.
Just for the record, I’ve been in the Objectivist community for only a few years, but the number of assholes online is comparable to any other online community, and I’ve never met anybody in real-life Objectivist meet-ups or reading groups who was an asshole.
Anyway, like I’ve said, I just came here to endorse the philosophy and recommend reading for those who would like to know more. I didn’t come to this thread to advocate or defend the philosophy, and especially not the community. If you want to start a separate discussion on the merits of the philosophy itself, I’d be happy to join in on that.
This is a rather unconditional endorsement for something a lot of people seem to be finding problematic.
How much philosophical writing other than Rand have you read?
I’m with Eliezer on this one, that the vast majority of philosophy is utter nonsense and trash. Objectivism seems to be a shining exception to that rule, however. I am an avid reader of Hofstadter, and I have also been reading up some on the foundations of mathematics which seems like it might be interesting, and Objectivism has turned me on to philosophy in general, so I am on the lookout for more good work. The amount of cross-over between Objectivist style “rationality” and LessWrong style “rationality” is especially awesome, and it’s unfortunate that there’s such a lack of cross-over in the communities.
I’m not sure what you mean by “unconditional endorsement”, however. My primary purpose here was to recommend some reading for those who would like to know more, but yes I do endorse Objectivism in general, for what that’s worth. Also, even if I thought the philosophy was wrong, as an avid reader of fiction, the novels really are awesome in their own right. So I am endorsing those, too.
If you want to start an Objectivism thread laying out the problems you and others have with the actual philosophy, I would be glad to join in there, I think that would be awesome :) If not, I will probably create one myself at some point.
It’s been done before.
Unfortunately, no it hasn’t. The only articles on LessWrong have made the people of Objectivism their subject, not the philosophy or the ideas themselves. I would like to see a thread devoted specifically to the latter. I’m the type of person who is not particularly interested in all the drama about the people or the community, just the actual substance of the ideas.
By “unconditional endorsement”, I mean that you had a shining recommendation with no acknowledgement that a lot of people think there’s something pretty wrong with Rand and no qualifiers as to how there might be value to be found in Rand’s stuff even if one did acknowledge the problems.
So it basically comes off as you reading the room poorly and assuming that people mostly either haven’t heard of Rand or think Rand is awesome, while people are probably actually coming in with the notion that Rand’s stuff is some sort of philosophical crackpottery espoused by assholes.
Just for the record, I’ve been in the Objectivist community for only a few years, but the number of assholes online is comparable to any other online community, and I’ve never met anybody in real-life Objectivist meet-ups or reading groups who was an asshole.
Anyway, like I’ve said, I just came here to endorse the philosophy and recommend reading for those who would like to know more. I didn’t come to this thread to advocate or defend the philosophy, and especially not the community. If you want to start a separate discussion on the merits of the philosophy itself, I’d be happy to join in on that.